"The Robing Room: CA State Judges

Hon. Daniel Juarez	See Rating Details
Judge Superior Court
Los Angeles County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 3.4 - 4 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 3.0 - 4 rating(s)	Please send me alerts on this judge E-mail Address:

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address ()

* *

Confirm E-mail Address

* * *

Zip

Occupation

Add a comment only

Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating.

General Rating Criteria

* Temperament		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Scholarship		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Industriousness		(1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
* Ability to Handle Complex Litigation		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Punctuality		(1=Chronically Late,10=Always on Time)
* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters		(1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
* General Ability as a Trial Judge		(1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
Flexibility In Scheduling		(1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)

Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation		(1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
General Inclination Regarding Bail		(1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Plea Discussions		(1=Not at all Involved, 10=Very Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)

Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation		(1=Not at all Evenhanded,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Involvement in Settlement Discussions		(1=Not at all Involved,10=Very Involved)
General Inclination		(1=Pro-defendant, 10=Pro-plaintiff)

Comments

Please type what you see below:

Not an even number!

What others have said about Hon. Daniel Juarez

Comments

Litigant

Comment #: CA53391
Rating:1.0

Comments:
MY PROBATE ESTATE OF my DADS. THE DEFENDANT FRAUDED ALL THE PAPERWORK ANG NOTARIES WERE FAKE WITH NO journals t TO SHOW THAT THE NOTARY WAS PERFORMED PER LA COUNTY CLERK. ALSO THE DEFENDANT FATHER ROBERT HILL WAS IN
A COMA AND NEVER SIGNED NO HOUSE OVER TO HER. NOW WIMA HILL -EDWARDS. Robert hill died
with LUEKMIA CANCER HOW CAN A DEAD MAN IN A COMA SIGN ANYTHING. THIS WHOLE CAS IS A FRAUD. PERIODT. SOMEONE FROM THE BENCH NEED TO B HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS MISTAKE FRAUD
I DID EVERYTHING BY LAW. BUT NO ONE DID LOOTERS. STEALING THIEVES 4/17/2024 PROBATE COURT. DEPT 67. JUGE JUAREZ WAS PLEASANT!!!!!

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA49338
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Biased with total done-deal predispositions in serious probate matters. Allows the estate looters to lie with no evidence supporting their desire to loot estates. Decisions victimize elderly women.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA48489
Rating:1.5

Comments:
Judge Juarez pushes settlements. He said in court he does not know how an attorney would figure out how to try a trust case. Probate courts have jurisdiction over trust cases. Makes no sense. I can tell he never reads court papers that are filed by the parties.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA39642
Rating:10.0

Comments:
Very pleasant judge. Listens well, helpful and easy going. He is the model of what a good judge should be.

Court Staff

Comment #: CA35379
Rating:10.0

Comments:
Judge Juarez is very conservative, contientious and fair. He is thorough and follows the rules. He is completely prepared and ready for all cases. He treats everyone with respect and deference.
He understands the process thoroughly since he has a sibling who is a client of the Regional Center. He takes his job seriously.

Other

Comment #: CA31594
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Judges like Juarez of Mental Health Court compel their conserved slaves of the psychiatrist to appear every year whether they have done anything wrong or not. When contesting a case the psychiatrist must be given a chance to testify, and is payed by the defendant who is referred to by Mental Health Court as a respondent. Neither Judge Juarez nor any other judge of Mental Health Court, ever tells the defendant what they are there for. People in Mental Health Court are convicted because they do not willingly take the medicine prescribed to them by the psychiatrist, a doctor that the defendants must pay to testify against them if they chose to contest their conservatorship.
The defendants in Mental Health Court do not know that their conservatorships are reinstated because they do not willingly take the medicine forced upon them. They are never told. I figured it out only after being conserved for more than ten years. I had been conserved for twelve years before I told a knew psychiatrist earning four hundred dollars an hour that I can see now that whether or not I needed the medicine when first conserved I need it now because I have been taking it for so long. I was hoping that this psychiatrist would write me a letter in my favor on account of my confession, but he did me one better. He said that on account of my understanding that I need the medicine their will be no need for him to write a letter recommending reappointment of my conservatorship. Psychiatry as practiced in Mental Health Court is a religion where the defendants serve the psychiatrist, who is like a high priest , the court room Devision 95A is their temple and the judge is equivalent to the Pope. Mental Health court does not discuss whether or not the defendant needs the medicine, that has already been decided, Mental Health Court is about whether or not the person is willing to consent to taking the medicine, but that is kept a secret.
Cordially
Lawrence Laven

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA31464
Rating:1.0

Comments:
This Judge is a total embarrassment. Totally unsuited to be a Judge. Passive and aggressive and vindictive. Appears to never read any papers filed. Biased in favor of "professional" fiduciaries and their attorneys, and against law people. If you represent a lay person, would be malpractice not to 170.6 this Judge every time.

Probation or Pretrial Officer

Comment #: CA16268
Rating:1.0

Comments:
This Judge comes into courtroom saying "he's tired from the night before,so bear with him". Says he's "confused and has a headache". This Judge did not review the complete facts and medical records regarding our 94 year old uncle, and made decision's anyway instead of reading all documentation before we get into court again. He uses the same comments again "I have a headache and I'am confused on this matter" and ultimately denied the family over a neighbor's wrongful doing in taking advantage of a elderly gentleman! Three times in court the Judge has used these same excuses and comments. My family and I have lost all faith in the court system after what we have had to go through with this Judge, before, during, and after our case. We feel that this Judge was completely incompetent and totally incapable of understanding what was at stake, and made decisions without fully comprehending what he was doing to the family's well being.